4 ms·

Civilians haven't been allowed to buy new assault rifles in the US since 1986. As a result of the severely restricted supply, they're very expensive and rather

by wl 11y ago

Civilians haven't been allowed to buy new assault rifles in the US since 1986. As a result of the severely restricted supply, they're very expensive and rather rare. But even before the registry was closed to civilians, registered machineguns were only used in a handful of crimes since they were regulated in 1934. In the US, there is a pattern of politicians pushing for their pet gun control measures after some mass shooting, regardless of whether or not it would have stopped the incident that justifies the legislative push. The most recent example is the reaction to the Charleston church shooting, where some politicians pushed for an "assault weapons" ban (which is political term about cosmetics—these are not machineguns) and background checks for private party sales, despite the shooter not using a weapon that would have been covered by the proposed ban, purchased from a licensed gun dealer after passing a standard background check. While universal background checks are arguably a good thing regardless of what motivated the push, the "assault weapons" ban is pure political nonsense. Such guns are almost never used in crime and previous bans were shown to not have any effect on crime. When a gun is used in a crime, it is almost always a handgun.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
NOTE I don't want to get into the politics of gun ownership. Just fact seeking. I was under the impression that the AR-15 is very readily available? Do these not count as assault rifles?
- wl 11y ago
  An assault rifle is a select-fire (having the option of more than one shot per trigger pull) rifle shooting an intermediate cartridge. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle because it isn't a select-fire. The M16, which the AR-15 is based on, is an select-fire weapon and is thus is an assault rifle. The main difference between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle is that the hunting rifle tends to use a more powerful cartridge. The rest is cosmetic.
  - homunculus 11y ago
    I'm not trying to be obtuse but don't most hunting rifles still work on a bolt action model thus requiring an operator to chamber a round manually whereas the AR-15, and rifles like it, 'automatically' chambers the next round in a fraction of a second.
    - russell_h 11y ago
      I'd guess bolt action rifles are more popular, but both bolt action and semi-automatic rifles are readily available and widely used for hunting.
    - Nimitz14 11y ago
      afaik most hunting rifles are semi automatic (that's what you're describing and how the AR15 works)
    - Glyptodon 11y ago
      I can't say "most" but there are plenty of semi-automatic rifles used for hunting, at least in the US. The legalities of what kind of rifle you're allowed to use to hunt what where and when and the particular ammo and how big of magazine can be used are somewhat arbitrary and vary from state to state and game animal to game animal. I think at least 48 at states allow some form of hunting with semiautomatic rifles. In some parts of the country "Bubba'd" SKS guns are pretty popular for hunting deer I think. (Google image search "bubba gun sks" for a general idea of what's going on - converting a wood stock and 10-round stripper clip magazine to polymer with detachable box magazines, which is a pretty good illustration of how the same gun can look a lot different.)
    - virmundi 11y ago
      I have a semi-auto Browning 12 gauge. Sadly, I've never fired it. Apparently it's really fun.
    - douche 11y ago
      Hunting rifles range all over the place. Deer rifles range from semi-automatic, to pump-action, lever-action, bolt-action, break-action single shot, and others I'm probably not familiar with. Semi-auto rifles are not a new development- there are a huge number of M1 carbines and M1 Garant rifles in private hands dating from WW2, and there were Browning and Remington semi-auto hunting rifle models earlier than that.
  - waffle_ss 11y ago
    > The M16, which the AR-15 is based on Actually it's the other way 'round - the AR-15 came first; the M16 is based on it. Also, detachable magazines are often cited as another requirement for classifying a rifle as an assault rifle.
- jedmeyers 11y ago
  Adding to what user wl already said - 'assault rifle' is a really vague term, but historically it is defined as a rifle that soldier can use to provide a covering fire to himself while assaulting an enemy position. Before first 'assault rifles' appeared comrade soldiers where supposed to provide suppressive fire during an attack. And from that definition it is clear that semi-auto weapon cannot be considered an 'assault rifle'.
oconnore 11y ago
Yeah, I wish we would stop pushing for assault weapons bans and instead push for a similar sort of safety and usage training, psychological and temperament screening, waiting period, and background checks that a police officer might go through before they are presented with a gun and a badge (that may even be an opportunity to re-think the sort of training we give our police!). It would be costly, but that sort of licensing, even if done rather clumsily, would make it far more difficult for the wrong people to acquire weapons, while staying in line with the 2nd amendment and preserving gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Oddly, the NRA seems more even more opposed to licensing than they are on restricting magazine capacity. Maybe they agree that it would be [too] effective!
- Nrsolis 11y ago
  "Psychological and temperament[sic] screening?" Unless you have a foolproof method of determining criminal behavior a-priori OR you're fromthe department of pre-crime, how exactly do you expect this to work in practice? I think many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of the enumerated rights of the amended Constitution. I don't need permission to exercise any of those rights and they AREN'T granted by the government, only recognized by it. I don't need a First Amendment license. Why would I need a Second Amendment license?
  - oconnore 11y ago
    > Unless you have a foolproof method of determining criminal behavior a-priori I don't need one, and never claimed to have one. A method does not need to be foolproof in order to be effective. The existing procedure for screening police officers, though it has some flaws, works remarkably well overall. Thus, I suspect that a similar procedure, applied to average citizens, would also be effective. > I don't need a First Amendment license. Why would I need a Second Amendment license? When your free speech impacts others in your community, you often do. For example, amateur radio licensing is required to broadcast your free speech, and you may need permission from a zoning board to make a large religious display in your yard. Here is Scalia from DC v. Heller, a landmark case in the right to bare arms: > nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms It seems to me that a reasonable condition and qualification for the purchase of a weapon is to be of a stable mind, and have the proven ability to operate it safely and accurately. The license would not restrict any law abiding citizen from going through the qualification process, and the cost would be subsidized, so how exactly are your rights being infringed?
jakeogh 11y ago
"Universal background check" is code for registration: http://cqrcengage.com/azcdl/UBC http://cqrcengage.com/azcdl/UBC Hand your rifle to a friend in Washington state? That's a (unconstitutional) felony.
- wl 11y ago
  Just because all of the proposals from legislators to make background checks mandatory for all purchases involve de facto registries doesn't mean that it's impossible to implement it without registries.
  - jakeogh 11y ago
    Maybe that's technically true, honestly I doubt it, once you give information to the gov, it keeps it. Legal or not. Evil-doers care not about whatever law anyway, it's just a burden and an obvious infringement on the people's right to keep and bear arms. What's next? Background checks for 3D printers? Maybe some DRM to keep us safe?
    - pyre 11y ago
      > Evil-doers Are these people that just have the "evil bit" flipped to true? Tossing around the word "evil" just seems like you're asking for a politicized "debate."
      - jakeogh 11y ago
        That's fair. Kinda. I'm referring to the people who unjustly kill. I should have said "murderer".
- Canada 11y ago
  This is how it is in Canada, and it sucks. Some rifles are classified as unrestricted don't have to be registered, while other rifles which accept the exact same rounds and magazines are classified restricted. Licenses must be obtained to even move them, let alone lend, give, or sell to someone else. At least advances in manufacturing technology will make this nonsense impractical eventually.

by wl 11y ago

JupiterMoon 11y ago

NOTE I don't want to get into the politics of gun ownership. Just fact seeking. I was under the impression that the AR-15 is very readily available? Do these not count as assault rifles?

wl 11y ago
An assault rifle is a select-fire (having the option of more than one shot per trigger pull) rifle shooting an intermediate cartridge. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle because it isn't a select-fire. The M16, which the AR-15 is based on, is an select-fire weapon and is thus is an assault rifle. The main difference between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle is that the hunting rifle tends to use a more powerful cartridge. The rest is cosmetic.
- homunculus 11y ago
  I'm not trying to be obtuse but don't most hunting rifles still work on a bolt action model thus requiring an operator to chamber a round manually whereas the AR-15, and rifles like it, 'automatically' chambers the next round in a fraction of a second.
  - russell_h 11y ago
    I'd guess bolt action rifles are more popular, but both bolt action and semi-automatic rifles are readily available and widely used for hunting.
  - Nimitz14 11y ago
    afaik most hunting rifles are semi automatic (that's what you're describing and how the AR15 works)
  - Glyptodon 11y ago
    I can't say "most" but there are plenty of semi-automatic rifles used for hunting, at least in the US. The legalities of what kind of rifle you're allowed to use to hunt what where and when and the particular ammo and how big of magazine can be used are somewhat arbitrary and vary from state to state and game animal to game animal. I think at least 48 at states allow some form of hunting with semiautomatic rifles. In some parts of the country "Bubba'd" SKS guns are pretty popular for hunting deer I think. (Google image search "bubba gun sks" for a general idea of what's going on - converting a wood stock and 10-round stripper clip magazine to polymer with detachable box magazines, which is a pretty good illustration of how the same gun can look a lot different.)
  - virmundi 11y ago
    I have a semi-auto Browning 12 gauge. Sadly, I've never fired it. Apparently it's really fun.
  - douche 11y ago
    Hunting rifles range all over the place. Deer rifles range from semi-automatic, to pump-action, lever-action, bolt-action, break-action single shot, and others I'm probably not familiar with. Semi-auto rifles are not a new development- there are a huge number of M1 carbines and M1 Garant rifles in private hands dating from WW2, and there were Browning and Remington semi-auto hunting rifle models earlier than that.
- waffle_ss 11y ago
  > The M16, which the AR-15 is based on Actually it's the other way 'round - the AR-15 came first; the M16 is based on it. Also, detachable magazines are often cited as another requirement for classifying a rifle as an assault rifle.
jedmeyers 11y ago
Adding to what user wl already said - 'assault rifle' is a really vague term, but historically it is defined as a rifle that soldier can use to provide a covering fire to himself while assaulting an enemy position. Before first 'assault rifles' appeared comrade soldiers where supposed to provide suppressive fire during an attack. And from that definition it is clear that semi-auto weapon cannot be considered an 'assault rifle'.

oconnore 11y ago

Yeah, I wish we would stop pushing for assault weapons bans and instead push for a similar sort of safety and usage training, psychological and temperament screening, waiting period, and background checks that a police officer might go through before they are presented with a gun and a badge (that may even be an opportunity to re-think the sort of training we give our police!). It would be costly, but that sort of licensing, even if done rather clumsily, would make it far more difficult for the wrong people to acquire weapons, while staying in line with the 2nd amendment and preserving gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Oddly, the NRA seems more even more opposed to licensing than they are on restricting magazine capacity. Maybe they agree that it would be [too] effective!

Nrsolis 11y ago
"Psychological and temperament[sic] screening?" Unless you have a foolproof method of determining criminal behavior a-priori OR you're fromthe department of pre-crime, how exactly do you expect this to work in practice? I think many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of the enumerated rights of the amended Constitution. I don't need permission to exercise any of those rights and they AREN'T granted by the government, only recognized by it. I don't need a First Amendment license. Why would I need a Second Amendment license?
- oconnore 11y ago
  > Unless you have a foolproof method of determining criminal behavior a-priori I don't need one, and never claimed to have one. A method does not need to be foolproof in order to be effective. The existing procedure for screening police officers, though it has some flaws, works remarkably well overall. Thus, I suspect that a similar procedure, applied to average citizens, would also be effective. > I don't need a First Amendment license. Why would I need a Second Amendment license? When your free speech impacts others in your community, you often do. For example, amateur radio licensing is required to broadcast your free speech, and you may need permission from a zoning board to make a large religious display in your yard. Here is Scalia from DC v. Heller, a landmark case in the right to bare arms: > nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms It seems to me that a reasonable condition and qualification for the purchase of a weapon is to be of a stable mind, and have the proven ability to operate it safely and accurately. The license would not restrict any law abiding citizen from going through the qualification process, and the cost would be subsidized, so how exactly are your rights being infringed?

jakeogh 11y ago

"Universal background check" is code for registration: http://cqrcengage.com/azcdl/UBC http://cqrcengage.com/azcdl/UBC Hand your rifle to a friend in Washington state? That's a (unconstitutional) felony.

wl 11y ago
Just because all of the proposals from legislators to make background checks mandatory for all purchases involve de facto registries doesn't mean that it's impossible to implement it without registries.
- jakeogh 11y ago
  Maybe that's technically true, honestly I doubt it, once you give information to the gov, it keeps it. Legal or not. Evil-doers care not about whatever law anyway, it's just a burden and an obvious infringement on the people's right to keep and bear arms. What's next? Background checks for 3D printers? Maybe some DRM to keep us safe?
  - pyre 11y ago
    > Evil-doers Are these people that just have the "evil bit" flipped to true? Tossing around the word "evil" just seems like you're asking for a politicized "debate."
    - jakeogh 11y ago
      That's fair. Kinda. I'm referring to the people who unjustly kill. I should have said "murderer".
Canada 11y ago
This is how it is in Canada, and it sucks. Some rifles are classified as unrestricted don't have to be registered, while other rifles which accept the exact same rounds and magazines are classified restricted. Licenses must be obtained to even move them, let alone lend, give, or sell to someone else. At least advances in manufacturing technology will make this nonsense impractical eventually.